Dicas de pesquisa
First report: Important developments and substantive issues, March-July 2016 2016, para. 21
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur will here outline some preliminary observations in an attempt to move the debate about smartphones beyond privacy, with the intent of eventually moving the debate back to core privacy concerns better informed by the confirmation or abnegation of societal values regarding "the bigger picture". It is the Special Rapporteur's position that other appropriate standards of behaviour need to be examined within society before a more definitive view can be taken about some of the privacy dimensions of smartphone use.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Health
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
First report: Important developments and substantive issues, March-July 2016 2016, para. 26
- Paragraph text
- At the present moment in time the Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy is identifying this issue of the smartphone and similar devices (including wearables and implants) as one for future discussion, possibly by or in collaboration with other Special Rapporteurs. No particular opinion or recommendation is being made by the Special Rapporteur at this preliminary juncture. At this stage, it is simply a question of identifying a subject for further investigation as a matter which impinges strongly on privacy, but is not only of interest exclusively to the right to privacy but also to other fundamental rights such as those of due process in criminal proceedings. Some might argue that the logical conclusion of Riley v. California, when applied to the right to silence as distinct from the right to privacy, would mean that in most cases the smartphone of the accused in criminal proceedings should not be a compellable witness - a position which would then also have a significant impact on the right to privacy, certainly insofar as it would be a recognition of how intimate and private the data held on the smartphone might be.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
First report: Important developments and substantive issues, March-July 2016 2016, para. 23
- Paragraph text
- As outlined in Riley v. California: "Modern cell phones … are now such a pervasive and insistent part of daily life that the proverbial visitor from Mars might conclude they were an important feature of human anatomy."7 The Supreme Court Justices noted correctly that: Cell phones differ in both a quantitative and a qualitative sense from other objects that might be kept on an arrestee's person. The term "cell phone" is itself misleading shorthand; many of these devices are in fact minicomputers that also happen to have the capacity to be used as a telephone. They could just as easily be called cameras, video players, rolodexes, calendars, tape recorders, libraries, diaries, albums, televisions, maps, or newspapers. One of the most notable distinguishing features of modern cell phones is their immense storage capacity. Before cell phones, a search of a person was limited by physical realities and tended as a general matter to constitute only a narrow intrusion on privacy. More than once the United States Supreme Court Justices note that: Although the data stored on a cell phone is distinguished from physical records by quantity alone, certain types of data are also qualitatively different. An Internet search and browsing history, for example, can be found on an Internet-enabled phone and could reveal an individual's private interests or concerns - perhaps a search for certain symptoms of disease, coupled with frequent visits to WebMD. Data on a cell phone can also reveal where a person has been. There is an element of pervasiveness that characterizes cell phones but not physical records. Prior to the digital age, people did not typically carry a cache of sensitive personal information with them as they went about their day. Now it is the person who is not carrying a cell phone, with all that it contains, who is the exception. According to one poll, nearly three-quarters of smartphone users report being within five feet of their phones most of the time, with 12% admitting that they even use their phones in the shower. The ability of the smartphone to provide a very detailed and accurate profile of its user is likewise identified by the Justices:
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
3 shown of 3 entities